• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Electoral College

craig said:
When slavery was abolished the electoral college lost it's constitutional validity and should be abolished also.
Click to expand...

No, the slavery or not, the problem is the same.
 
it's just me said:
It clearly shows that I am tired of beating this horse to death. This information is available everywhere, I dont know why you dont know this.

Number one, getting rid of the EC requires a Constitutional Amendment, you can't just wish it away. It may interest you to know that one of the fears the founding fathers had was that a foreign power might interfere with the election, which is what Democrats have been whining about for 20 years.

Worst of all, having the Feds (instead of the states) regulating the election is so Hitlerian I'm surprised that the party of calling everybody else "Hitler" wants to do it.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Federalist No. 68 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
So you are scared a foreign government will interfere, and somehow the EC stop this? Can you tell us how, specifically, the EC stops it? Why do you think unequal representation is better than equal representation?
 
rahl said:
So you are scared a foreign government will interfere, and somehow the EC stop this? Can you tell us how, specifically, the EC stops it? Why do you think unequal representation is better than equal representation?
Click to expand...

Pay attention: I'm not afraid of anything, I told you you the Democrats have been whining about it for 20 years.

And since you didn't read the article I provided you can find your own answers.
 
It was obsolete by the 3rd election and isn't even remotely used as intended. Consequently, we can have a government deriving its powers without the consent of the governed as happened twice in my lifetime. At the national level, perhaps ratifying Article the First, or simply expanding the House without the amendment, would help ameliorate the problem but even then, it would not repair such a fundamental flaw in our system.
 
Bok_Tukalo said:
It was obsolete by the 3rd election and isn't even remotely used as intended. Consequently, we can have a government deriving its powers without the consent of the governed as happened twice in my lifetime. At the national level, perhaps ratifying Article the First, or simply expanding the House without the amendment, would help ameliorate the problem but even then, it would not repair such a fundamental flaw in our system.
Click to expand...

Awww, are you still butthurt about the times your candidate didn't win the electoral vote?
 
HIP56948 said:
Trump versus Hillary. I don't want individual states dictating who the President is...especially the ignorant, uneducated red states. If someone gets the most votes for President, that is who wins the election.
Click to expand...

Then stay in Austrailia.
 
it's just me said:
Pay attention: I'm not afraid of anything, I told you you the Democrats have been whining about it for 20 years.
Click to expand...
so you have no actual valid reason to not move to a national popular vote. that was my point.
it's just me said:
And since you didn't read the article I provided you can find your own answers.
Click to expand...
did you write the article? nope. I'm asking why YOU support the EC and unequal representation vs equal representation. Everyone knows why you are so afraid to answer.
 
rahl said:
so you have no actual valid reason to not move to a national popular vote. that was my point.

did you write the article? nope. I'm asking why YOU support the EC and unequal representation vs equal representation. Everyone knows why you are so afraid to answer.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about. Good bye.
 
HIP56948 said:
Oh, that's adorable. By the way..ever looked at the destitute, uneducated, poor states? Yeah, most of them are run by right wingers. That speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
Ever look at the drug addled, needle strewn, homeless, blue state dumps? Yeah, they are run by left wingers.
 
it's just me said:
You don't know what you're talking about. Good bye.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to read your arguments to support that accusation. We both know why you can't support it though. And we both know why you prefer unequal representation vs equal representation. It's because republicans can't win national elections because they don't appeal to the majority of americans.
 
it's just me said:
Ever look at the drug addled, needle strewn, homeless, blue state dumps? Yeah, they are run by left wingers.
Click to expand...
what about the drug addled, needle strewn, homeless, red state dumps? yea, those are run by right wingers.
 
mrjurrs said:
Can you explain why 5 million urban votes should count less than 5 million rural votes? Why SD, ND, WY and other overrepresented states should have a greater input on our elections than underrepresented states?
Click to expand...
How can you honestly say that Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Montana are over represented, each State is guaranteed a Republican form of government comprised of 2 Senators and at least in the fore mentioned States 1 Representative, would you rather they not be represented at all.
 
it's just me said:
Ever read the Federalist Papers? I mean, surely you've heard of the Constitution? If you want to ignore the law and have illegal elections just so you can say "I win" and proceed with your communist dictatorship it's not America anymore and all bets are off.

I'm tired of arguing with you guys, get a clue.
Click to expand...
Some parts of the Federalist Papers have been cited in SCOTUS decisions but they have no legal standing in our system.

Why does WY have 1 member of the House, and CA have 53? If you said the Constitution, you'd be incorrect.

Do some research and get back to me. Look up the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
 
MamboDervish said:
This will never work. There's no reason for all of the States to subscribe to this change if they are among the States that are already over-leveraged with representation. They'd be giving up power in D.C. Why would they do that?
Click to expand...
As more states experience under representation in the Presidential election, positions change. As some states that had been solidly red move through purple to blue, positions change. This is just one option, the one that is furthest along.
 
Glitch said:
That also violates Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
{emphasis added}

Since Congress never gave their approval, any attempt to implement a national popular vote by any State will be held unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
You really do play the Constitution both ways don't you? First, while you could bring a case citing your position, this is a clear 10th Amendment issue with settled law allowing states wide latitude in determining how their electors are selected. Second, each of the states that are currently in this effort, speak only to their states rights when the underlying requirements of implementing the law occur.

This would not be a national popular vote. Thanks for reading the cite though...
 
Terryj said:
How can you honestly say that Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Montana are over represented, each State is guaranteed a Republican form of government comprised of 2 Senators and at least in the fore mentioned States 1 Representative, would you rather they not be represented at all.
Click to expand...
In WY, it takes @ 194,000 people to generate a single EC vote.
In CA, it takes @ 715,000 people to generate a single EC vote.

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
 
mrjurrs said:
In WY, it takes @ 194,000 people to generate a single EC vote.
In CA, it takes @ 715,000 people to generate a single EC vote.

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
Click to expand...
Since the EC isn't set up by population but by the number of Senators and Representatives each State has, then it is a very fair system of voting for the POTUS. Why do you think that Delaware objected to the direct vote method of voting when the Constitution was being debated. It was a way of allowing even the least populated States a voice in selecting the POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom